strengthening school leadership school leadership k-12 school leadership project strengthening...

The Education Policy and Leadership Center

Preparing and SupportingSuperintendents andPrincipals

StrengtheningSchool

Leadership

October 2006

eplc


The Education Policy and Leadership CenterSuite 408800 North Third StreetHarrisburg, PA 17102717.260.9900 phone717.260.9903 faxwww.eplc.org

Copyright © 2006 The Education Policy andLeadership Center

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,published, broadcast, or distributed without the permission of TheEducation Policy and Leadership Center. Additional copies of thisreport may be purchased for $10 each. Bulk prices are available forlarger quantities.

Strengthening School Leadership

K-12 School Leadership Project

Strengthening School Leadership: Preparing and Supporting Superintendents and Principals

October 2006

Part I • The K-12 School Leadership Project ..................................................1

Part II • Is there a Shortage of School and District Leaders ............................2

Part III • 21st Century School Leadership............................................................4

Part IV • Knowledge and Skills for Effective School Leadership ......................7

Part V • Preparing and Supporting Future School and District Leaders ........11

Part VI • Recommendations ..............................................................................16

Appendix • EPLC Study Group Members ............................................................19

Notes ................................................................................................................20

It is imperative that we

assure that leaders for

schools and districts are

well-prepared and

supported and that school

districts have a sufficient

pool from which to select

the best possible leaders

for their communities.

eplc


Part I: The K-12 SchoolLeadership Project

Leadership is second only to classroominstruction among all school-related factorsthat contribute to what students learn at

school.1 Therefore, it is imperative — especially inthis era of increased focus on successful learningfor all students — that we assure that leaders forschools and districts are well-prepared andsupported and that school districts have asufficient pool from which to select the bestpossible leaders for their communities.

The Pennsylvania K-12 School Leadership Projectof The Education Policy and Leadership Center isintended to review the status of district and schoolleadership and to recommend policy changes toenhance the quality of that leadership — particu-larly with regard to district superintendents andschool principals.

The Pennsylvania K-12 School Leadership Projectis sponsored by The Education Policy andLeadership Center (EPLC), with the cooperationof the Pennsylvania Association of SchoolAdministrators (PASA), and the PennsylvaniaAssociation of Elementary and Secondary SchoolPrincipals (PAESSP).

To assist in identifying and considering bothunderlying issues and potential recommendations,EPLC appointed a 20-member study group (seeAppendix for a list of members). Members includ-ed school and district leaders, leadership educa-tors, policymakers, association representatives,Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE)personnel, foundation staff, and education advo-cates. The study group held an initial conferencecall meeting on April 11, 2005, followed by face-

to-face meetings in Harrisburg on May 23-24,2005 and February 13, 2006. The study groupconducted a final conference call meeting on June29, 2006. While the study group was instrumentalin preparing this report, it is not intended to be aconsensus document that necessarily represents inall respects the views of all its members. Thereport ultimately is the product of EPLC, whichbears responsibility for its contents.

EPLC also reviewed and summarized research onthe roles and expectations of school and districtleaders today, the knowledge and skills necessaryfor successful performance of school and districtleadership roles, administrator preparation pro-grams and continuing professional educationopportunities, the supply of and demand for schooland district leaders, and state policy related tothese issues. This research informed the work ofthe study group and this report.

In addition, EPLC conducted two focus groups onroles, skills, and preparation issues — one with astatewide group of successful superintendents onOctober 27, 2005 and the other with a statewidegroup of successful principals on December 12, 2005.

Finally, staff for this project sought input from participants at the EPLC Annual PennsylvaniaEducation Policy and Leadership Conference inHarrisburg on March 13, 2006.

During the year that this project has been operat-ing, the Pennsylvania Department of Educationhas moved forward aggressively to improve thecontinuing professional education opportunitiesfor school leaders in the state, and these effortsalso have informed our work.

Strengthening School Leadership 1

While 25 percent of the

state’s public school

students are members

of racial and ethnic

minorities, only 2 percent

of superintendents and

11 percent of principals are.

eplc

Part II: Is there a Shortage ofSchool and District Leaders?

It does not appear that there is a shortage ofindividuals who have been educated andcertified to be school and district leaders. On

the other hand, there is substantial and credibleanecdotal evidence that the pool of actualapplicants for these positions is increasingly shallowand more frequently filled with individuals seekingtheir first principalship or superintendency. Thisanecdotal evidence generally supports the findingsof a state legislative study in 2003. That study notedthat standards-based reforms have increased thecomplexity of administrative jobs; that some districtsare experiencing shortages despite the adequatestatewide supply of certified potential administrators;and that compensation packages not commensuratewith responsibilities, lack of support, and high levelsof stress, make school administrative positions lessand less attractive.2

Between 2000-01 and 2004-05, PDE issued 859 let-ters of eligibility to candidates for the superinten-dency. This averages 172 per year, or enough candi-dates to fill superintendent slots in one-third of allPennsylvania school districts annually. Clearly, thedemand for new superintendents is less than this.But those conducting searches report that there arefewer applicants for the top school district post thanthere were a decade ago and that more applicantsare seeking their first superintendency — manywithout prior central office experience. It is likelythat many of those certified as superintendents arecandidates for other central office positions such asassistant superintendents.

The situation for principals is similar. During thesame time period, PDE issued initial principal certifi-cates to more than 4,500 individuals, or an average

The Education Policy and Leadership Center2

of over 900 per year. This would be enough toreplace nearly 30 percent of all building leadersannually — again a more than sufficient supply. Infocus group discussions with experienced and suc-cessful superintendents, we learned that the supplyof applicants for principal positions also is muchsmaller than it once was and that in some casesdistricts have to advertise multiple times becausethey do not receive any applications at all inresponse to their initial advertisements. As withsuperintendent candidates, principal applicantstend to have less administrative experience (typi-cally as assistant principals) than they did in thepast. Superintendents report, however, that thequality of applicants tends to be high, althoughthe quantity and prior experience are both lacking.

Some who have principal certification initiallyintend to become principals but are discouragedby relatively low compensation (on a per diembasis) for first year principals compared with thatfor experienced teachers. In addition, in an era ofincreased accountability, a classroom appears to bea much safer work environment than a principal’soffice. A number of experienced principals in ourfocus group discussion told us that while they findtheir work rewarding and appreciate the opportu-nity to help a larger number of children than theycould in a single classroom, they probably wouldnot seek to become principals if faced with thatoption today. Others with principal certificatesactually never intend to become administrators.They enter principal preparation programs,according to a number of leadership educators,because that provides them with a straightforwardand coherent approach to getting master’s degreeswhich provide increased compensation on theteacher salary schedule.

Finally, in some districts, where school boardmembers do not always respect the managementroles of district and school leaders, both incum-bents and potential future leaders are discouragedby the increasingly political nature of both princi-pal and superintendent jobs.

So while there are enough “qualified” candidatesfor superintendencies and principalships inPennsylvania, school districts often are forced to choose from a very small applicant pool of individuals with relatively little prior administra-tive experience.

And that pool is not very diverse. While 25 per-cent of the state’s public school students are mem-bers of racial and ethnic minorities, only 2 percentof superintendents and 11 percent of principalsare. This reflects a serious “pipeline” issue, as only6 percent of teachers (the source of almost alladministrator candidates) are nonwhite.3 And that pipeline goes back to the public schools,where minority students are less likely to take rigorous curricula, less likely to graduate, and lesslikely to go to college (where they might preparefor careers in education).

We do know that it is possible to promote diversityof administrators from within the pipeline of theteacher corps. Between 1997-98 and 2004-05, the percentage of women superintendents inPennsylvania increased from 12 percent to 20 percent, and the percentage of women principalsincreased from 33 percent to 44 percent.4

The next question is whether their training actual-ly prepares future leaders for the changing roles ofschool and district administration in the 21st cen-tury. A discussion of those issues follows.


District leaders

cannot rely upon an

authoritarian leadership

model, but rather

must be flexible and

collaborative in their work.

They must provide

vision for the district

and must oversee the

execution of that vision.

eplc

Part III: 21st Century SchoolLeadership

Decades of effective schools research — goingback to the work of Ron Edmonds in the1960s — continues to find a strong

relationship between effective instructionalleadership of schools and high levels of studentachievement.5 Leading schools and districts hasbecome more complex than ever before, due in partto increased pressure to perform, increased diversityof students, and an unstable political environmentwithin which schools must operate.6

The National Commission on Governing America’sSchools reported in 1999 on the need to rethink theroles of school boards and superintendents so theyare responsible for creating a district mission and forholding schools accountable for achieving results.This kind of shift will require additional training formost superintendents and school board members.7

EPLC studied these roles and relationships during2003-04 and issued a report and policy recommen-dations — Strengthening the Work of School Boards inPennsylvania — in March 2004.

In addition, recent reports by the two national prin-cipals associations make clear that multiple demandsand conflicting priorities make it difficult for princi-pals to focus on school improvement to the degreethey think they should.8 Since the issuance of theseimportant studies, school and district leaders havecome under even more scrutiny and accountability,especially as a result of the federal No Child LeftBehind Act.9

As waves of school and district administrators —particularly principals and superintendents — retire,there is an emerging national shortage of highlyqualified school leaders, although recent research


suggests this problem may be concentrated inschools with the most challenging working condi-tions, high concentrations of poor and minoritystudents, and low salaries.10 Anecdotal informa-tion, discussed in Part 2 of this report, suggeststhat at least some Pennsylvania schools and dis-tricts are facing similar problems. There is evi-dence that the academic programs and profession-al experience of would-be administrators does notadequately prepare them for the challenges theywill face, nor is much of the in-service professionaldevelopment meeting their very real needs.11 Thisproblem is compounded by increasing pressure onadministrators for student performance improve-ments and, in many places, declining salaries relative to those of teachers.12 Pennsylvania schooldistrict administrators face even greater demands— more students and teachers per capita — and are paid relatively lower salaries than theirpeers nationally.13

In order to deal with shortages in the number ofadministrator candidates and promote non-tradi-tional school leadership models, states and dis-tricts have begun recruiting superintendents andprincipals from the military, corporate, and gov-ernment worlds. This is especially true for urbansuperintendencies.

What are the characteristics of effective leadershipfor 21st century schools and districts in a standards-driven system? There appears to be a growing con-sensus that school leaders must be first and fore-most instructional leaders. Other necessary char-acteristics include communication skills, collabora-tion, community building (both within and outsidethe school), ability to articulate and be guided by aclear vision, and willingness to take risks and leadchange.14 Quality educational leadership is a keyto successfully implementing school reform.15

Evolving Roles of SuperintendentsMuch has been written in the past decade or twoabout the evolving and increasingly complex rolesof school district superintendents. This is an age ofrapid change and expectations that are bothincreasing and new. District leaders therefore can-not rely upon an authoritarian leadership model,but rather must be flexible and collaborative intheir work.16 They must provide vision for the dis-trict — a vision focused on good instruction for allchildren — and must oversee the execution ofthat vision.17 In addition, they must lead people inthe district — principals and teachers — as well asboard members and the community and mustassess district personnel’s effectiveness in achiev-ing the vision of high level learning for all stu-dents.18 A recent study conducted for TheWallace Foundation concluded that the three primary roles of superintendents today are settingdirection, developing people, and redesigning theorganization to better achieve its mission.19

Increasingly, the effective superintendent mustserve as an effective political leader, working withthe school board and other community leadersand increasingly (and especially in large urban dis-tricts) with state and national political leaders toobtain adequate resources and ward off politicalinterference in the operation of the schools.20 Inour earlier work on school boards and superin-tendents, EPLC concluded that effective superin-tendents today must serve as district CEOs, imple-ment school board policy, establish organizationalstructures and school programs to help all studentssucceed, lead the development of strategic plans,recommend to the board the hiring (and if neces-sary the dismissal) of all personnel, propose andoversee the implementation of the budget, main-tain positive relationships with community stake-holders, practice and institutionalize the concept


Instructional leadership

today is a more complex

undertaking than it was

even a decade ago, in part

because of the increasing

pressure of accountability for

the academic achievement

of all students.

eplc

of continuous improvement, and serve as effectiveadvocates for the district and its children.21

Evolving Roles of Principals Recent research buttresses decades of stated (butnot always implemented) beliefs about the role ofthe building principal in promoting improved stu-dent achievement. But instructional leadershiptoday is a more complex undertaking than it waseven a decade ago, in part because of the increasingpressure of accountability for the academic achieve-ment of all students. Today’s successful principalsmust be “educational visionaries, instructional andcurriculum leaders, assessment experts, disciplinari-ans, community builders, public relations and com-munications experts, budget analysts, facilities man-agers, special programs administrators, as well asguardians of various legal, contractual, and policymandates and initiatives.”22 In addition, they areresponsible for maintaining safe and orderly learningenvironments for students and teachers. Because ofthe breadth of these responsibilities, some have sug-gested the necessity of a distributive leadershipmodel, in which some aspects of the principal’s “job”are shared with others in the building, includingteacher leaders.23


Part IV: Knowledge and Skillsfor Effective School Leadership

Most of the academic research onleadership has focused on principals,rather than on superintendents. But

there is substantial agreement within the researchliterature as well as among practitioners about theknowledge and skills needed by both principalsand superintendents if they are to be effective intheir evolving and increasingly complex roles. This section of the report draws upon theavailable research as well as focus groups ofsuccessful principals and superintendents and theinput of members of EPLC’s school leadershipstudy group.

Both principals and superintendents must be able to:

• Create an organizational vision focused onstudent success and communicate the visionto all relevant stakeholders.

• Create an organizational culture of teachingand learning in which student learning isparamount.

• Manage resources effectively to bring aboutdesired results.

• Collaborate, communicate, engage, andempower others — both inside the organiza-tion and in the larger community.

• Operate fairly and equitably displaying per-sonal and professional integrity.

• Make informed decisions based upon the bestinformation available.

• Advocate for public education and for chil-dren in the larger political, social, economic,legal, and cultural contexts.

• Support the professional growth of self andothers through both practice and inquiry.

This list was developed by PDE’s Work Group onSchool Leadership Standards in 2004-05 andserves as the basis of much of the work on leader-ship development currently being undertaken byPDE (and described in Part 5 of this report).These standards, now part of PDE’s PennsylvaniaInspired Leadership (PIL) program, were designedto cut across school leadership positions — fromteacher leaders to superintendents — and toinform professional preparation, professionaldevelopment, and professional practice.

The list also reflects and summarizes much of theresearch literature on effective principals andsuperintendents. That research gave rise a decadeago to a set of six standards developed by theInterstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium(ISLLC).24 The ISLLC standards reflect all of thepoints noted above except for informed decision-making and professional development of self andothers. The ISLLC standards have become thebasis of leadership preparation programs in manystates, including Pennsylvania.

What knowledge and skills are needed to meetthese standards? Both our study group and focusgroups provided essentially the same answers summarized in the following charts.


eplc


Knowledge and Skills of Effective Superintendents

Strategic planning Standards-based systems

Distributed leadership School improvement

Learning theory Instructional strategies

Cultural proficiency Learning styles

Organizational climate Academic standards

Assessment systems Curriculum

Principles of supervision and evaluation Fiscal planning and management

Management theory Data-informed decision-making

Artful use of infrastructure Information systems

Time management Task management

Collective bargaining Conflict resolution

Interest-based negotiations Community relations and resources

Marketing strategies Group dynamics

Ethics Law

Change theory and leadership Aligning decisions with organizational vision

Political and economic trends Issue analysis

Public engagement Policy making processes

Adult learning theory Reflection and self assessment

Resilience Skill in working with school board

Human relations skills Communication skills

Integrity

These standards and lists of knowledge and skillsneeded for effective performance in school anddistrict leadership roles should be at the heart ofinitial and continuing leadership education. Inaddition, for principals there is an especially richresearch literature to help inform leadership edu-cation. Perhaps the most extensive review andsummary of the research has been conducted dur-ing the past few years by Mid-continent Researchfor Education and Learning (McREL). Thisincludes a meta-analysis of 69 studies involving2,802 schools, approximately 1.4 million students,

and 14,000 teachers. The authors conclude thatthere is a direct correlation between the principal’sleadership behavior and student achievement; animprovement of one standard deviation in theleadership skills of an average principal yields a 10percentile point increase in student achievementin an average school. Furthermore, the authorsidentify 21 specific leadership behaviors that con-tribute significantly to student achievement.25

These are summarized in the table that follows.

Many of the same factors are noted for principals, albeit in somewhat different terminology and in different organizational contexts.

Knowledge and Skills of Effective Principals

Analytical skills Understanding the political climateAbility to focus and prioritize Maintaining a safe, orderly environment

Decision-making skills IntegrityData-based management Consistency

Communication skills, including Enthusiasmlistening to multiple audiences

Cultural proficiency Genuine concern for studentsKnowledge of school staff Commitment to school/district vision

Staff assessment, development, discipline Mental toughnessEffective instructional practices Strong sense of self

Curriculum management Interpersonal skillsChild development Group dynamics

Academic content (ability to teach something well) Flexibility and adaptabilityCurrent social trends Open-mindedness

Education policy Problem-solvingSchool law, especially special education law Organizational skills

Knowledge of community Fiscal management


eplc


21 Principal Responsibilities Correlated with Increased Student AchievementResponsibility Demonstrated by the Extent to Which the Principal…

1. Affirmation Recognizes and celebrates accomplishments and acknowledges failures

2. Change Agent Is willing to challenge and actively challenges the status quo3. Contingent Rewards Recognizes and rewards individual accomplishments

4. Communication Establishes strong lines of communication with and among teachers and students

5. Culture Fosters shared beliefs and a sense of community and cooperation

6. Discipline Protects teachers from issues and influences that would detract from their teaching time or focus

7. Flexibility Adapts his or her leadership behavior to the needs of the current situation and is comfortable with dissent

8. Focus Establishes clear goals and keeps those goals in the forefront of the school’s attention

9. Ideals/Beliefs Communicates and operates from strong ideals and beliefs about schooling

10. Input Involves teachers in the design and implementation of important decisions and policies

11. Intellectual Stimulation Ensures faculty and staff are aware of the most current theories and practices and makes the discussion of these a regular aspect of the school’s culture

12. Involvement in Curriculum, Is directly involved in the design and implementation ofInstruction, and Assessment curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices

13. Knowledge of Curriculum, Is knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruction,Instruction, and Assessment and assessment practices

14. Monitoring/Evaluating Monitors the effectiveness of school practices and their impact on student learning

15. Optimizer Inspires and leads new and challenging innovations16. Order Establishes a set of standard operating procedures and routines

17. Outreach Is an advocate and spokesperson for the school to all stakeholders18. Relationships Demonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects of teachers

and staff19. Resources Provides teachers with materials and professional development

necessary for the successful execution of their jobs20. Situational Awareness Is aware of the details and undercurrents in the running of the

school and uses this information to address current and potential problems

21. Visibility Has quality contact and interactions with teachers and students

Several conclusions can be drawn from all of this work.

1. The roles of superintendents and principalshave become more complex, requiring abroad array of substantive and proceduralknowledge as well as a diversity of skills.

2. Much of the knowledge and skill base relatesdirectly to the core elements of education —curriculum, instruction, and assessment —and to the management of education —effective use of resources, understandingschool law, and professional development.

3. Some of the knowledge and skill base relatesto a set of broader leadership attributes —communications, collaboration, data-baseddecision-making, and politics.

4. Only the rarest individual demonstratesexcellence in all these areas, lending cre-dence to the need for a leadership team (atdistrict and building levels) to draw upon thedisparate strengths of men and women informal and informal leadership positionsacross the organization. State policy mustrecognize that school and district leaderswork in complex organizations with otherskilled professionals, not simply as solitaryadministrators acting alone.

5. Some of the necessary knowledge and skillbase can be learned in graduate school lead-ership programs, while some can best bedeveloped in practice, either during initialpreparation or subsequently on the job.

Part 5 of this report discusses leadership prepara-tion and continuing support for school and districtleaders once they assume leadership positions.

Part V: Preparing andSupporting Future School and District Leaders

Almost all principals and superintendentsare prepared for their positions ingraduate-level university training

programs. PDE has approved 23 institutions ofhigher education to prepare superintendents and40 to prepare principals. Each administrative areahas a set of PDE standards by which individualuniversity programs are judged every seven years.These are based upon the ISLLC standards.

Most university programs include coursework inleadership theory, organizational theory, humanresources management, curriculum and instruc-tion, school finance, school law, school planning,and school-community relations and communica-tions. Aspiring superintendents are required tocomplete at least 180 hours of authentic simula-tions, field experiences, and at least a 90-hourinternship. Principal candidates are required tocomplete at least 360 hours of authentic simula-tions, field experiences, and at least a 180-hourinternship.

In addition to completing the appropriate trainingprogram, a candidate for the superintendencymust have six years of professional experience inthe schools, at least three of which must havebeen in a supervisory capacity. In order to becomea principal, an individual must have at least fiveyears of professional experience in education.

There have been a handful of exceptions in recentyears, in which the Secretary of Education grantedletters of eligibility to urban superintendents whodid not complete the traditional education leader-


It appears that the

knowledge and skill items

where there are cited

major weaknesses in the

preparation programs are

precisely the knowledge and

skill areas deemed to be most

important for school and

district leadership.

eplc

ship training program or have the requisite experi-ence in public schools. This mirrors the experiencein other states around the nation.

Administrators are required to complete the sameamount of continuing professional education asteachers — six credits of collegiate coursework, sixcredits of approved continuing professional educa-tion courses, 180 hours of continuing professionaleducation programs, or any combination of theseevery five years. Failure to comply with this require-ment renders inactive the administrative certificateof a school principal or the letter of eligibility of adistrict superintendent.

Both our focus groups of successful superintendentsand principals and the EPLC study group identifiedseveral weaknesses of current leadership preparationprograms.

Gaps in knowledge and skills for district superinten-dent and school principal candidates were identifiedin the following areas:

• K-12 academic standards.

• Use of assessment data to lead curriculumchange and instructional improvement efforts.

• Labor relations and teacher supervision.

• Interpersonal skills and group dynamics.

• School law and contracts.

• Special education.

• Crisis management.

• School finance.

• Community relations.

• Change processes.

• Working effectively with the school board (for superintendent preparation programs).


This list is especially problematic given the find-ings in Part 4 of this report on the knowledge andskills needed for effective school and district lead-ership. It appears that the knowledge and skillitems where there are cited major weaknesses inthe preparation programs are precisely the knowl-edge and skill areas deemed to be most importantfor school and district leadership.

Several members of our study group suggested thatthe requirements for clinical practice be increased,either through longer preservice internships orthrough mandatory induction programs for newprincipals and superintendents. While study groupmembers acknowledge the cost of doing this, theygenerally believe that the key to improving prepa-ration is more and better clinical practice.

One of the most significant studies — and cri-tiques — of school leadership programs wasreleased last year. This report is the first of four tobe produced by the Education Schools Project, anational study of education programs, including asurvey of deans and representative samples of fac-ulty and alumni (graduating between 1995 and2000), as well as a survey of 1,800 current princi-pals and case studies of 28 programs.26 Its primaryauthor, Arthur Levine, offers nine criteria andargues that administrator preparation programs inthe aggregate fail to meet any of the nine:

1. The program purpose is explicit, focusing onthe education of practicing school leaders;goals reflect the needs of today’s school lead-ers, schools, and children; success is tied tostudent learning.

2. The curriculum is rigorous, coherent, andorganized to teach the skills and knowledgeneeded by leaders at specific types of schoolsand at the various stages of their careers.

3. Curriculum integrates the theory and practice of administration.

4. Faculty is composed of scholars and practi-tioners expert in school leadership, up todate in their fields, intellectually productive,and rooted in the academy and the schools;the number of professors and fields of expert-ise is aligned with curriculum and studentenrollment.

5. Admissions criteria are designed to recruitstudents with the capacity and motivation tobecome successful school leaders.

6. Graduation standards are high and the degreesawarded are appropriate to the profession.

7. Research is high in quality, driven by practice, and useful to practitioners and/or policymakers.

8. Resources are adequate to support the program.

9. The program engages in continuing self-assessment and performance improvement.

According to Levine, the curriculum in master’sprograms is almost a random collection of surveycourses and in doctoral programs is designed moreto educate scholars than practitioners. He sees little connection between the courses of study andthe needs of schools and administrators. Theoryovershadows practice, and there is insufficientmentorship by practicing administrators. He findsthat there is inadequate integration of theory andresearch and too much reliance on adjunct facul-ty. Admissions and graduation standards both arelow, and the Ed.D. degree is poorly suited to theneeds of practicing administrators. He argues thatresearch is of poor quality and rarely used, thatmost programs are “cash cows” that are insuffi-ciently supported by their universities, and thatself-assessment is rare.


eplc

Another point of view is offered by the UniversityCouncil for Educational Administration (UCEA),an organization representing 73 doctoral grantinginstitutions. It sets forth 11 standards for effectiveeducation administration programs:

1. Faculty identify, develop, and promote rele-vant knowledge for the leadership field.

2. Programs involve a critical mass of full-timefaculty who exhibit excellence in scholar-ship, teaching, and service.

3. Programs collaborate with practitioners andother stakeholders in candidate selection,program planning, teaching, and fieldinternships.

4. Programs collaborate with scholars, practi-tioners, and other stakeholders to informprogram content, promote diversity, anddevelop sites for clinical practice andapplied research.

5. Programs are conceptually coherent, alignedwith quality leadership standards, informedby current scholarship, and incorporate bestpractices in leadership preparation.

6. Programs engage in ongoing evaluation andenhancement.

7. Programs include concentrated periods ofstudy and supervised clinical practice in settings that provide an opportunity to work with diverse groups of students andteachers.

8. Programs have systematic recruitment and admissions plans that use multiple sources of evidence to recruit a high quality anddiverse applicant pool.

9. Programs systematically assist students inplacement and career advancement.

10. Faculty participate in professional develop-ment programs for educational leaders, incooperation with professional associationsand other stakeholders.

11. Programs offer regular professional devel-opment for faculty to enhance their skillsin leadership preparation and research methods.

Clearly there are significant similarities betweenLevine’s criteria and UCEA’s standards. In addi-tion to challenging Levine’s methodology, UCEAalso argues that leadership preparation programshave made great strides in improving their pro-grams to meet these standards since the class of2000 (the latest year Levine studied) graduated.27

During the past couple of years, PDE hasresponded to perceived weaknesses in administra-tor preparation by convening the Work Group onSchool Leadership Standards and by using thatgroup’s recommendations as the basis of a stan-dards-based professional development program.The Pennsylvania Inspired Leadership (PIL) program focuses on leadership to improve studentachievement. It is designed not as a preserviceuniversity-based program but as a continuing professional education program for practicingschool administrators.

PIL has three core standards and six corollarystandards. The core standards are:

1. The leader has the knowledge and skills to think and plan strategically, creatingan organizational vision around personalized student success.

2. The leader is grounded in standards-basedsystems theory and design and is able to


transfer that knowledge to his/her job as the architect of standards-based reform in the school.

3. The leader knows how to access and useappropriate data to inform decision-makingat all levels of the system.

The six corollary standards are:

1. Creates a culture of teaching and learning with an emphasis on learning.

2. Manages resources for effective results.

3. Collaborates, communicates, engages, andempowers others inside and outside of theorganization to pursue excellence in learning.

4. Operates in a fair and equitable mannerwith personal and professional dignity.

5. Advocates for children and public educationin the larger political, social, economic, legal,and cultural context.

6. Supports professional growth of self and others through practice and inquiry.

There are two distinct elements of PIL. “Grow”serves cohorts of novice principals and assistantprincipals, with training provided by the NationalInstitute for School Leadership (NISL). “Support”serves cohorts of experienced superintendents,assistant superintendents, central office adminis-trators, and principals. Training is based upon aPDE adaptation of the Total Leaders curriculumoriginally developed by the PennsylvaniaLeadership Development Center (PLDC). BothGrow and Support provide Act 48 continuing professional education credit and establish cohortsof colleagues, both regionally and statewide. Theprograms are offered in conjunction with thestate’s intermediate units in eight regions. The2005-06 school year was the first in which PIL

was offered; it rolled out in four of the eightregions — two with a Grow component and twowith a Support component. For the 2006-07school year, PDE anticipates offering both compo-nents in all eight regions.

Numerous other professional development oppor-tunities exist for school administrators, includinguniversity graduate courses and programs offeredby state and national associations of administratorsincluding the Pennsylvania Association of SchoolAdministrators, Pennsylvania Association ofElementary and Secondary School Principals, andPennsylvania School Boards Association. Some ofthese focus on specific skills needed by administra-tors, and some focus on more generic leadershipskills and on the concept of team leadership ofschools and districts. Some are directed at aspiringand new leaders and others at more experiencedadministrators. Our focus groups of superintend-ents and principals uniformly praised these pro-grams as being very useful.

Other organizations also provide opportunities forthe professional development of administrators.Intermediate units frequently organize commonlearning experiences for administrators in theirdistricts and offer informal or formal support net-works. The Pennsylvania Academy for theProfession of Teaching and Learning manages thePennsylvania Leadership Induction (PLI) program.PLI matches trained mentors (successful principalsand those recently retired) with new principals,assistant principals, and aspiring leaders to provideface-to-face and electronic consultation.


Part VI: RecommendationsRecommendations for State Policymakers:

1. In rolling out the Pennsylvania Inspired Leadership (PIL) program, the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Education (PDE) should assure that statewide implementation is of uniformquality — both with respect to regional delivery and to the delivery of the Grow andSupport elements of the program.

2. In its focus on implementing PIL, PDE should not intentionally or inadvertently undermineother effective professional education programs for school and district leaders. While thereis generally a need for the state-mandated professional development (Act 48) to be morefocused and for the “anything goes” attitude toward Act 48 to be eliminated, manysuccessful administrators have been well served for many years by other programs.

3. In selecting future trainers for PIL, PDE should consider applicants from university-basedadministrator training programs and staff of other organizations that currently provideprofessional development opportunities for school and district leaders.

4. Given the scope, complexity, and importance of PIL, PDE should commission an externalevaluation of the program and its implementation, along with the impact on administrators’practice in schools and districts.

5. PDE and the State Board of Education should consider the findings of the Levine study andof UCEA with respect to criteria for effective programs in the next revision of programapproval standards for principal and superintendent preparation programs.

6. PDE and the State Board should use the structure and content of the PIL core andcorollary standards in the next revision of program approval standards for principal andsuperintendent preparation programs so that in the future there is an effective pathwayfrom preservice through inservice training for school and district leaders.

7. In revising program approval standards for principal and superintendent preparationprograms, PDE and the State Board should consider ways of overcoming the shortcomingscited by current practitioners — preparation for K-12 academic standards, use of assessmentdata, labor relations and teacher supervision, interpersonal skills and group dynamics,school law and contracts, special education, crisis management, school finance, communityrelations, change processes, and, for superintendents, working with school boards.

8. PDE and the State Board should require year-long induction programs for new principalsand superintendents, and the state should provide financial support so these efforts areappropriately resourced. The induction should be operated in conjunction with PIL training

eplc


and should rely on trained trainers available through NISL and the Principal LeadershipInduction Program of the Pennsylvania Academy for the Profession of Teaching andLearning. Since most districts will have inadequate local resources to make such inductioneffective, it should be organized by the state through the intermediate units.

9. PDE and the State Board of Education should authorize an endorsement to the teachingcertificate for curricular and instructional leadership. This would provide training fordiversified leadership, including teachers who may not want to leave the classroom but whocould serve effectively as members of school building leadership teams.

Recommendations for Universities:10. Whether or not PDE standards require it, universities that prepare future school and

district leaders should review and revise their programs to reflect the PIL standards.

11. Whether or not PDE standards require it, universities that prepare future school anddistrict leaders should review and revise their programs to overcome the shortcomingscited by current practitioners (see Recommendation 7).

12. Whether or not PDE standards require it, universities that prepare future school anddistrict leaders should consider instituting longer internships, especially in principalpreparation programs, and should consider requiring those internships to be served inschools other than those in which the candidates are teachers.

13. Universities should encourage faculty members in leadership preparation programs tobecome trainers for PIL.

14. In order to increase the pool of minority candidates for leadership positions, universitiesshould provide academic and social support to minority students seeking to becometeachers and encourage other talented students to consider careers in teaching. Aftergraduation, universities should recruit successful teachers to consider careers inadministration and should support them in their graduate programs.

Recommendations for School Districts:15. Principals and superintendents should systematically identify promising future leaders and

support their preparation for administrative positions. In doing so, they should take carethat potential leaders of color are fully considered and supported.


eplc

16. School districts with salaries that make administrative positions not seem viable shouldincrease compensation for administrators — especially for principals — in order to makethe positions attractive enough to merit leaving the classroom.

17. School districts should promote the establishment of school leadership teams headed byprincipals, rather than assuming principals are capable of performing all of the school’sleadership tasks alone. This will entail providing some training (see, for example,Recommendation 9) and probably some release time for faculty members who participateas leadership team members.

18. School boards should treat superintendents as CEOs of their districts and work with themto establish well-functioning district leadership teams that model effective leadershippractices at the building level.

19. School districts must support minority students to succeed in a rigorous high schoolcurriculum, graduate from high school, and go on to college at rates equal to those of theirnon-minority peers. In doing so, they should encourage more talented and motivatedyoung people to consider careers in teaching. Ultimately, this will be the pool from whichthe next generation of school and district leaders is selected.

Additional Recommendations:20. In order to foster effective systems of identifying, preparing, and supporting school and

district leaders, there needs to be alignment among the state, universities, and school districts. This includes standards for administrator preparation programs and theircontinuity with professional development offerings for current administrators.

21. Professional organizations such as The Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators (PASA), Pennsylvania Association of Elementary and Secondary School Principals(PAESSP), and Pennsylvania School Boards Association (PSBA) can play important rolesin increasing the diversity of the administrator candidate pool by offering mentoringopportunities and encouraging their members to support women and minorities withpotential to be effective school and district leaders.


AppendixThe Education Policy and Leadership CenterK-12 School Leadership Study Group

Joe BardExecutive DirectorPA Association of Rural and Small Schools

William BoydProfessorDepartment of Education Policy Studies, The Pennsylvania State University

Susan Brownlee Executive DirectorThe Grable Foundation

Sharon BrumbaughSpecial Assistant to the Secretary, PA Department of Education

Dan Collins Executive DirectorPA Association of Elementary and Secondary School Principals

Joan CrousePrincipalNew Oxford Elementary School, Conewago School District

John DeFlaminisExecutive DirectorCenter for Educational Leadership, Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania

Ronald DufallaPrincipalBrentwood High School, Brentwood School District

Gary FedorchaBoard of DirectorsPennsylvania State Education Association

Paula Hess Special Assistant to the Majority LeaderPennsylvania House of Representatives

Frederick McCoy Director of Leadership & Professional DevelopmentMid-Atlantic Lab for Student Success, Temple University

Sharron NelsonDirectorBureau of Teacher Certification and Preparation, PA Department of Education

Vic PapaleExecutive DirectorA+ Schools (Pittsburgh)

Curtis RoseAssistant Executive DirectorPennsylvania School Boards Association

Candy Salinger-LernerStaff RepresentativePennsylvania Federation of Teachers

Carol SaylorSuperintendent Manheim Central School District

Sandy SheppeardAssistant DirectorPA Academy for the Profession of Teaching andLearning, PA State System of Higher Education

Helen SobehartDirector Leadership Institute, School of Education, Duquesne University

Stinson StroupExecutive DirectorPennsylvania Association of School Administrators

EPLC Staff:

Ronald Cowell, President

Robert Feir, Senior Fellow

Karen Molchanow, Manager of Policy Information and Programs


Notes1 Leithwood, K., et al. How Leadership Influences Student Learning,

University of Minnesota and University of Toronto, for TheWallace Foundation, 2004.

2 Joint State Government Commission. Administrative Shortages inPennsylvania’s Public School Districts: Report of the Task Force onAdministrative Shortages. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania GeneralAssembly, July 2003.

3 Pennsylvania Department of Education student enrollment andprofessional personnel reports, 2004-05. Harrisburg: PDE, 2005.

4 Pennsylvania Department of Education professional personnelreports, 1997-98 and 2004-05. Harrisburg: PDE, 1998 and 2005.

5 Furtwengler, W. and Furtwengler, C. “Performance Assessmentin the Preparation of Educational Administrators: A Journey.”Journal of School Leadership, January 1998.

6 Goodman, R. and Zimmerman, W. Thinking Differently:Recommendations for 21st Century School Board/SuperintendentLeadership, Governance, and Teamwork for High StudentAchievement. Arlington: Educational Research Service, 2000.National Commission on Governing America’s Schools.Governing America’s Schools: Changing the Rules. Denver:Education Commission of the States, 1999.

7 National Commission on Governing America’s Schools. Ibid.

8 National Association of Elementary School Principals. LeadingLearning Communities: What Principals Should Know and be Ableto Do. Alexandria: NAESP, 2001. National Association ofSecondary School Principals. Priorities and Barriers in HighSchool Leadership: A Survey of Principals. Reston: NASSP, 2001.

9 Public Agenda. Rolling Up Their Sleeves: Superintendents andPrincipals Talk about What’s Needed to Fix Public Schools. NewYork: Public Agenda, 2003. Broad Foundation and Thomas B.Fordham Institute, Better Leaders for America’s Schools: AManifesto. Washington: Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2003.

10 Forsyth, J. et al. Is There a Shortage of Qualified Candidates forOpenings in the Principalship? An Exploratory Study. Arlington:Educational Research Service, 1998. Institute for EducationalLeadership. Leadership for Student Learning: Restructuring SchoolDistrict Leadership. Washington: IEL, 2001. Roza, M. et al. AMatter of Definition: Is There Truly a Shortage of School Principals?Seattle: Center on Reinventing Public Education, 2003.

11 Perspectives on Education Policy Research. “Policy Brief:Effective Leaders for Today’s Schools: Synthesis of a PolicyForum on Educational Leadership.” Teachers College Record.(http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EffectiveLeaders/). 1999. PublicAgenda. Trying to Stay Ahead of the Game: Superintendents andPrincipals Talk about School Leadership. New York: PublicAgenda, 2001.

12 Educational Research Service. School Administration UnderAttack: What Are the Facts? Arlington: Educational ResearchService, 1998.

13 Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators. WhitePaper: Pennsylvania School District Administration: A Look atSome Facts. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Association of SchoolAdministrators, 1999.

14 Perspectives on Education Policy Research. “Policy Brief:Effective Leaders for Today’s Schools: Synthesis of a PolicyForum on Educational Leadership.” Teachers College Record.(http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EffectiveLeaders/). 1999.

15 Public Agenda. Trying to Stay Ahead of the Game:Superintendents and Principals Talk about School Leadership.New York: Public Agenda, 2001, p. 5.

16 Heifetz, R. Leadership Without Easy Answers Cambridge, MA:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1994.

17 Education Writers Association. Effective Superintendents,Effective Boards. Washington: EWA, 2003.

18 Peterson, G. J. Demonstrated Actions of Instructional Leaders: AnExamination of Five California Superintendents. Education PolicyAnalysis Archives, 1999.

19 Leithwood, K., et al. How Leadership Influences Student Learning,University of Minnesota and University of Toronto, for TheWallace Foundation, 2004.

20 Farkas, S., Johnson, J., and Duffett, A. Rolling Up Their Sleeves:Superintendents and Principals Talk About What’s Needed to FixPublic Schools. A Report from Public Agenda for The WallaceFoundation, November 2003. Fuller, H. et al. An Impossible Job?The View from the Urban Superintendent’s Chair. Center onReinventing Public Education, funded by The WallaceFoundation, 2003.

eplc


21 The Education Policy and Leadership Center. Strengthening the Work of School Boards in Pennsylvania.(http://www.eplc.org/k12governance.html). Harrisburg: EPLC, 2004.

22 Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M, and Meyerson,D. School Leadership Study: Developing Successful Principals.Stanford Educational Leadership Institute, 2005.

23 Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., and McNulty, B.A. School Leadershipthat Works: From Research to Results. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning, 2005. Spillane,J. P. and Sherer, J. Z., A Distributed Perspective on SchoolLeadership: Leadership Practices as Stretched over People and Place.Evanston: Northwestern University, 2004.

24 Council of Chief State School Officers. Interstate School LeadersLicensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards for School Leaders.Washington: CCSSO, 1996.

25 Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., and McNulty, B.A. School Leadership that Works: From Research to Results. Aurora, CO:Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning, 2005.

26 Levine, A. Educating School Leaders. The Education SchoolsProject, 2005.

27 University Council for Educational Administration. “AnEducative Look at ‘Educating School Leaders.’” Columbia,MO: UCEA, 2005.


Thank YouThe 2005-2006 programs and projects of


have been funded through grants received from

The Grable Foundation, The Heinz Endowments,

The Pittsburgh Foundation, the Benedum

Foundation, the Buhl Foundation, the Association

of Pennsylvania State College and University

Faculties, and The William Penn Foundation

(for EPLC Education Finance Project).

The K-12 School Leadership Project of EPLC

also is funded by special grants received from

the Mid-Atlantic Laboratory for Student

Success at Temple University, the Pennsylvania

Association of School Administrators, and the

Pennsylvania Association of Elementary and

Secondary School Principals.

eplc


Strengthening School Leadership


The Education Policy and Leadership Center is an independent, non-partisan and not-for-profit

organization established in 1998 and based in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

The mission of The Education Policy and Leadership Center is to encourage and support the

use of more effective state-level education policies to improve student learning in grades P-12,

increase the effective operation of schools, and enhance educational opportunities for citizens

of all ages.

The Education Policy and Leadership Center has developed and implements three discrete but

complementary core strategies to support its mission. These strategies are to:

Strategy #1 — Information

Link relevant and reliable research and other information to state-level education

policymakers and others and to provide assistance with policy analysis and policy

development.

Strategy #2 — Leadership

Develop awareness and capacity among policymakers, educators, and community

leaders to serve as advocates and champions for significant education policy issues.

Strategy #3 — Public Advocacy

Promote a public climate that expects and holds policymakers accountable to advocate,

adopt, and implement effective policies that advance significant education goals.

strengthening school leadership school leadership k-12 school leadership project strengthening...

Documents